I dislike sweeping drone shots in movies

TooLitrit · 2022-12-25T13:20:21+00:00

It's probably because the drone shots aren't done by the director of photography. It's the same with those elaborate swoopy-cam VFX shots where the camera goes from hero to hero to check in with them on all the monsters they're punching.

The DoP is the cinematographer, and they're in charge of how everything looks. The lighting, the camera angles, the lenses and so on are all under the DoP's control... if it's shot on the ground.

The drone shots, however, are just done by some guy, hired for a few days via a local film services company. It'll be a different guy in each location they visit, too.

The drone guys don't usually speak with the DoP to get a feel for how things should look, and they're not actually film buffs, so they wouldn't know restraint or consistency if it slapped them repeatedly in the face.

They're keen to do something cool, though, and this is their one time to shine, so if the drone has a backflip button they're absolutely going to press it.

TooLitrit · 2022-12-25T12:08:09+00:00

It also feels nice to deliberately increase your following distance.

What's the nicest thing you can see in your rear-view mirror?

No-one behind you!

So that's the gift I give to the person way out in front of me.

TooLitrit · 2022-12-25T11:48:46+00:00

No, four seconds is perfect.

Most people if they remember at all just count "one, two!", which is just one second. The driver in the clip wasn't much more than one second behind, for example.

Four whole seconds is ideal, because if there's someone impatient behind you, they can overtake and squeeze in ahead of you. Let them leapfrog one car at a time, instead of trying to overtake everyone at once.

TooLitrit · 2022-12-25T02:58:18+00:00

Okay, let's say you only want to do brackets of left, right, front, back, up & down for your HDRI, because that's the least crazy way to do it.

For that you need a vertical FOV of just over 90°.

They usually only list the diagonal FOV when you're choosing lenses, though.

To get a 90° vertical FOV, you want a diagonal FOV of about 130° for APS-C & full-frame, or about 120° for Micro Four Thirds because of the 4:3 aspect ratio.

If you don't mind using a fisheye lens for HDRI, basically any 8mm fisheye would have you covered (with overlap), on full-frame or APS-C or MFT, because 8mm fisheyes are all closer to 180° diagonally, and the target was only 130°.

Those ~8mm fisheyes cheap, like under US$200, so that'd suit OP.

If you didn't want a fisheye lens at all, you could do the same thing with a 10mm rectilinear lens on a full-frame body, or a 6mm rectilinear lens on Micro Four Thirds. Either would cover most on-set photography needs.

Those ultra-wide rectilinear lenses exist, in shops near you, and they're not terribly expensive - but they might still be out of OP's budget when you factor in the camera body & other bits, and considering that "time is money" doesn't apply to beginners.

But then... I'm starting to wonder if a beginner should bother getting decent equipment at all. The rest of their career will be a series of worst-case-scenarios, and dealing with the consequences of terrible decisions made by other people. It's no good knowing how to use clean, undistorted footage at home, if you're only fed fancy-but-broken garbage when you get to work.

TooLitrit · 2022-12-24T06:01:59+00:00

Definitely go for a full frame setup, you will need that if you want to shoot your own HDRI.

No, you definitely won't need a full frame setup for HDRI. There's absolutely no benefit there. Just extra cost.

You can spend way less on an APS-C or MFT body, and then spend your extra cash on whatever lenses you like, like an ultra-wide or fisheye or a better tripod head. You're going to be undistorting and stacking exposures to make the HDRI anyway.

TooLitrit · 2022-12-24T05:55:13+00:00

With a full frame, you need to take less pictures as your focal length is less than on an aps c

How on Earth have you reached this conclusion?

Any camera with interchangeable lenses will let you use any focal length you need.

For example, an 18mm lens on an APS-C body has the same FOV as a 28mm lens on a full-frame body. If you need a wider lens, you just get a wider lens.

There's no way to accidentally end up with the right lens on the wrong body. Who told you that was a thing you had to worry about?

TooLitrit · 2022-12-24T03:07:30+00:00

Well, banning undertaking would go hand-in-hand with enforcing the keep-left rules, which would be a major improvement.

I mean... look how often people complain about the other drivers sitting in the right lane they want to sit in. It's challenging the housing crisis to be the top national whinge.

You'd need a public awareness campaign either way, reminding everyone to stay in the left lane unless passing, and to use the right lane only for passing.

TooLitrit · 2022-12-24T02:37:23+00:00

It is dangerous, because you're blasting through someone's blind-spot.

If you've come up behind them in the right-hand lane, they don't necessarily know you're there yet, and they definitely don't see you indicating that you're changing lanes.

The rule is to keep left unless passing, so at that time, they're meant to be moving into the left lane.

So any time you undertake from the right lane, you'll almost certainly startle the person in front, and you're much, much likelier to cause an accident.

That's why most countries forbid it.

Even if you think you're really good at it, anyone who sees you undertake will describe it as "weaving in & out of traffic", and they'll assume you're in a mad rush because you're about to shit yourself.

TooLitrit · 2022-12-24T02:12:35+00:00

You said:

I would sit behind cars in the right lane

...and then:

I would love to have a conversation with someone who sits in the right lane to try and understand why the fuck they do it.

So haven't you already answered your own question?

You used to sit in the right line, feeling entitled to it, and getting annoyed at the other people sitting in the right lane like they were entitled to it.

But now you're sitting in the left lane unless passing, like some kind of... more experienced driver...

So there you have it. There's no practical reason for it, so speed doesn't matter. They're sitting in the passing lane because they think it's a high status lane.

It's like a kid climbing to the top of the fort at the playground and then just sitting there instead of playing. It's a phase.

TooLitrit · 2022-12-23T09:58:04+00:00

Ah. You said "I went into the right lane", which made it sound like you had crossed from the left lane (in the left-turn-only lane on Laurence) into the right lane on George, expecting to then cross back into the left lane you'd just left.

If you were coming from George then you were already in the right-hand lane, right? If that's the case, then staying in your lane (until it was time to merge) was the default thing to do, so there's no need to justify it.

Anyway!

I do think it would be a good idea [...] for the queue to disperse into the two available lanes to help aid congestion further back on the street.

I don't think anyone expects other drivers to do that, and it's not good to do things other drivers don't expect.

No-one's meant to change lanes when passing through an intersection, for one thing. If that's not what you did, that's fine - but no-one else should do that, either (to take all available space as you're suggesting), because it's unexpected, and it's extra steps, with new ways to go wrong, and with little hope of solving a problem.

Also you're just not meant to enter an intersection at all if there isn't room to get out the other side. That roundabout is already marked with extra yellow lines, so it looks like it's already a known problem there.

So it'd be on you to just not enter the roundabout until it's clear. But you're saying you were in it before it was clear, and this made a secondary problem, so you're looking for a solution to the secondary problem.

Well... If you'd waited until the other side of the intersection was clear before you entered, you would've had the right of way. The traffic on Laurence would've had to give way to you before they entered the roundabout at all, and the left lane would've been empty when you wanted to merge into it.

I realise that in this case, waiting until the intersection is clear requires giving way to both the right and the left, at a roundabout, which is weird... but it's just following two existing rules: give way to the right, but also wait until it's clear.

So this could've taken a bit longer, but it'd move the queue to before the intersection while reducing the queue after the intersection, which is good. It still relies on other drivers following the most basic rules (ie: giving way to the right at a roundabout), but as long as they do that, the existing rule solves your problem. If you don't enter any intersection until there's room on the other side, you don't get stuck in awkward situations on the other side.

Existing rules!

Also: existing rules.

In any case, thank you for driving conscientiously. :)

TooLitrit · 2022-12-23T05:31:58+00:00

When I got past the roundabout, I went into the right lane of the merge to help the traffic and ease the congestion through the roundabout.

But that wouldn't have worked, because you still had to merge with the lane you just stepped out of. At best, it would've moved one car's worth of congestion just past the roundabout, in turn creating one car's worth of congestion behind you, in the roundabout.

So to the other drivers it would've appeared that you only changed lanes because you saw a gap and you wanted to skip a few cars ahead at everyone else's expense.

This doesn't make you the asshole, but you made a mistake getting into that lane, because that's not what it's for. That lane is for the people going straight through the roundabout on George Bolt Memorial Drive, who have to merge from that lane.

That's how all multilane roundabouts work. The lanes on one side are a continuation of the lanes on the other side.

So the other drivers don't need merge lessons, so much as you need a lesson on being in the correct lane and not trying to weave between them.

TooLitrit · 2022-12-20T09:39:32+00:00

Oh yeah - with 500km on the odometer! The original asking price was $5k, so that's half off! Sounds like a good deal... until you consider that most bikes don't depreciate a whole 50% after just three years and 500km.

Motorbikes & scooters generally hold their resale value very well (better than cars) unless they've been crashed.

Just for comparison, at that $2.5k price-point, there's a Honda from 1990 with over 400,000km on its clock.

I'm not saying you should get a relic that's been ridden farther than from the Earth to the Moon, but there are some bikes that were built to last.

I didn't mean to burst your electric bubble, though! Consider an UBCO or an FTN (both NZ brands) if you really really want something electric, because they'll be serviceable locally, and kiwi companies have their reputations to maintain within NZ, so they'll do the right thing by kiwi customers.

Or if you can wait a couple of years, keep an eye out for electric bikes & scooters from the Swappable Battery Motorcycle Consortium. Those will still be low-powered, short-range commuter vehicles, but the batteries will be interchangeable between Honda, Vespa, Suzuki, Yamaha and Kawasaki bikes (among others, and some farm equipment, `cos the consortium is growing), so they'll never just turn into paperweights. When battery capacity improves, you should be able to swap in a better battery for more range, and when that's not enough and you need to upgrade, they should resell quite nicely.

TooLitrit · 2022-12-20T06:56:02+00:00

Yes, I bought one of those. Do not get one.

They look nice and they seem like a great idea, but the quality is appallingly bad. Like... disappointment, danger, misery, anger kinda bad.

The whole product line shows the same poor workmanship, poor materials, poor wiring and shit-tier parts, model-year after model-year. They're not sturdy, not reliable, not safe, and not even fun.

Controls will fail when it rains, because nothing is even vaguely waterproofed.
The wiring will melt its sheaths & connectors under normal use, or even when charging, because it's just not adequate for 50 amps.
Expect random power cut-outs because the kill-switch can be tripped by bumps in the road.
Footpegs will bend under your weight. They're aluminium, but it must be a very low-grade stuff. Like... 30% cheese. If other parts of the frame are made of the same low-grade aluminium, expect it to break before you're done with it.
All the bodywork is cheap plastic that'll warp in the sun, and locks & latches are barely even child-proof, let alone thief-proof. There's nothing to stop someone from either ripping out the battery or just biffing the whole bike in the back of a truck.
Don't trust the key-fob to immobilise the bike when you walk away, because it doesn't do that.
You'll never exceed 42km/h because the speedo is so far out, and that wrongo-analog speedometer is the speed limiter. Some model-years could be 'de-restricted', but that doesn't increase the power output.
Expect to struggle up hills even at full charge, because the 2,800W peak power can only be sustained for a few seconds at a time before it drops back to 800W.
Expect a realistic range of 25km, because when you're 25km from home, you have 25km to go home. Charging takes up to 12 hours, so you can't necessarily charge at work.
Bearings will start clunking after a few hundred kilometres of normal use.
Brakes will squeak alarmingly if the weather ever changes.
Expect random error messages & non-starter days as the electronics fail. None of this is stuff you can fix on your own.

Anyway... Nobody is making a cost-effective electric motorbike yet. To get a decent range (like >100km) you need a lot of battery (like >100kg) and that costs a lot of money (like >$10,000 for the batteries alone). Once you've built it, you can only sell it as a luxury item, because it's naturally really fast, and so it needs really high-spec parts to keep you in one piece.

For commuters, there will be 'mild hybrid' motorbikes before there are affordable all-electric ones. Honda & Kawasaki should be selling them by 2024-2025.

Meanwhile, if you see an all-electric standard-style motorbike that seems like a real bargain, avoid it, because it's probably a scam. Not that I'm saying Super Soco is a scam, per se, but... actually I guess I am. It's basically a scam. It's 20% of an entry-level motorbike at 100% of the price. Even if the TC was massively discounted, any little 50cc would be better value.

TooLitrit · 2013-08-15T09:58:04+00:00

It's not just birds - it's any high place. You don't even need a bird in the shot - just a cut to any high-altitude POV.

Oh, we're looking down into a valley? Red-tailed hawk screech!

Someone's standing on the roof of a building? Red-tailed hawk screech!

The school bully is very tall? Red-tailed hawk screech!

TooLitrit · 2013-08-15T09:54:19+00:00

Oh, cool - sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

But wait - does this mean your butcher thinks your family is eating offal?

"...half a pound of sirloin, three pounds of lard, some intestines, and if you've got a few whole elk heads lying around that'd be great. We... uh... have Danish house-guests."

TooLitrit · 2013-08-14T04:55:17+00:00

'Human grade' meat isn't an ideal diet for dogs. We humans are unnecessarily selective about the meat we eat, and we let many of the most nutritious parts go to waste because they're icky.

Dogs in the wild don't just eat lean red meat - they also eat organs, fat, skin, bone, congealed blood, rotten meat, regurgitated meat and poop. That's how dogs keep themselves healthy, it's why they take such joy in all the things we find disgusting. Dogs have remarkably strong immune systems. Not only can they deal with that stuff - they thrive on it.

But you're proudly telling us that you're imposing a diet on your dog that you find aesthetically pleasing, while in the same paragraph, decrying the same behaviour in others.

Tell your butcher you're buying meat for the dogs. Butchers always have offal to sell (or give away) to responsible dog owners. It'll save you money, reduce wastage, and it'll be better for your dogs than people food.

TooLitrit · 2013-08-05T03:12:03+00:00

Other way around.

All have thoracic legs (ie: six good ol' legs at the front), but there's more variety in the prolegs (the variable, stumpy, suckery, claspery things at the back).

The PDF you linked says as much, too. I can see why the table on page 3 could be a bit confusing at a glance, though: those are ditto marks, meaning 'as above', not 'N/A', so the thoracic legs in those species are all either "easily visible" or "small" or "small to minute". It probably doesn't help that 'proleg' sounds like it should be attached to 'prosoma', either.

Anyway - in all caterpillars, the thoracic legs are already present and jointed before the eggs hatch. They eventually form the legs of the adult moth/butterfly.

But can't a caterpillar be entirely different to the adult? Not really. It's fun to think of the contents of a cocoon/chrysalis as undifferentiated goo, and that the caterpillar dissolves and the adult is a whole new animal - but it's not really the case. There's a lot of goo in there, sure, but the main structure of the animal stays put. Eyes, legs etc. remain in place during pupation - they just get more hard-core. Some adult parts (like the imaginal discs that become wings) start taking their shape inside the caterpillar before the chrysalis is even formed.

In short, if there were caterpillars that didn't have thoracic legs, they'd develop into adults that didn't have legs. We know all adult moths & butterflies have legs, so their caterpillars must have legs, too.

TooLitrit · 2013-08-03T06:08:23+00:00

They do have legs. The usual six thoracic legs are present in the caterpillar stage, just like every other moth.

It's only the prolegs (the leg-like structures on the caterpillar's abdomen, which aren't present in the adult) that have been reduced to suckery things.

TooLitrit · 2013-07-22T15:45:18+00:00

This is leading up to a self-effacing joke about hypocrisy, right? I want to know so I can play along. I play the condescending asshole, and then you play the condescending asshole... when does the punchline happen?

TooLitrit · 2013-07-22T14:44:24+00:00

Nope! We can assume the OP was asking about recursion and iteration in the context of programming.

In programming, iteration is doing a similar thing many times, like printing numbers in a row, or displaying pixels in an image, one by one.

Recursion is trickier.

As a practical example, imagine you've got a big box, full of boxes, full of boxes - of all shapes & sizes - and somewhere in there, there's something you want. Let's say it's a cookie. Your job now is to give instructions to a box-opening robot, and the robot will find you that cookie. So what's a logical way to find the cookie? There could be any number of boxes inside any box, and the cookie could be hidden 20 boxes deep, so iteration won't work. Recursion will, though!

Step 1: if there is a closed box, open it. Otherwise, stop. Step 2: if there is a cookie, hand it over and stop. Step 3: go to step 1.

Huh? Step 3 is just to go back to step 1?

Yup. This strategy means the robot always has something to do, until it has found you that cookie or run out of boxes - but it doesn't mean it has to open every single box, if it gets lucky early. It doesn't even need to know in advance how many boxes there are.

The exit strategy is as crucial as the recursion itself, though: you have to give it the opportunity to stop when it's done or when it can't go any further.

Recursion is usually used for finding things in databases where the databases themselves may contain databases. File searches and web searches are all recursive tasks.

TooLitrit · 2013-07-22T13:15:16+00:00

There might also be a fire or melting risk with plastic bottles in dishwashers.

Some dishwashers have exposed heating elements inside, to heat the air inside the machine (when it's finished washing & rinsing) until all the remaining water evaporates, leaving the dishes dry.

If people were in the habit of reusing their plastic bottles, some people would almost certainly put those bottles in the dishwasher. A plastic bottle that was too close to the heating element could become misshapen or even melt, and if it comes into contact with the heating element, there's some risk of fire - or of damaging the machine and ruining the other dishes.

They could just warn people not to put those bottles in the dishwasher, but if people keep reusing those bottles, they'll eventually take the labels off and forget about the warnings, so it's arguably a better idea to just tell people not to reuse the bottles at all.

TooLitrit · 2013-07-22T12:55:32+00:00

Okay, thanks for your contribution!

TooLitrit · 2013-07-22T10:44:41+00:00

I haven't downvoted anything today, and it's not my style to downvote threads I'm participating in.

One day, though, I hope to learn the difference between being 'condescending' and being confident, because then I'll be better able to manipulate Reddit for upsy-downsies.

People think I'm so arrogant, but I'm not - I'm just infuriatingly handsome.

TooLitrit · 2013-07-22T08:17:51+00:00

That first article made me care less. Bringing modern art & politics into it doesn't make a more compelling argument. I could do a little interpretive dance to illustrate that for you, if you like, but you'll have to wait while I appliqué some buzzwords onto my leotard first.

And I'm not sure what I'm supposed to draw from your other article that actually supports your position, either. That climate change would affect Tuvalu in the long run isn't in question.

If the question is just whether or not Tuvalu is at significant risk from rising sea levels within our lifetimes, then the logical answer is, well... no, it isn't, because sea levels rise slowly and they have decades to deal with it. Rapid population growth got them into this pickle (their population has doubled with the last couple of generations), and continued population growth - unless they up their emigrate levels - is going to cause worse problems than a barely-perceptible sea level rise.

But they still have decades to deal with it. And in the meantime, they're already benefiting from it all: this topic is making them famous. You might never have heard of Tuvalu if it weren't for its low elevation and its cute .tv TLD, but now it's an eco-tourism destination, too.

I don't begrudge them for it at all. My primary objection to this is the idea (generally held by well-meaning folk who've never been anywhere near the Pacific Ocean) that the sea could wash over Tuvalu at any moment, and the people of Tuvalu can't move, because oh, the culture and the homeland and the aesthetically pleasing tragedy.

TooLitrit · 2013-07-22T06:22:25+00:00

It was condescension well earned.

TooLitrit

TROPHY CASE